Feminists for Life, men and abortion

Several years ago, I became a regular contributor to Feminists for Life.  It wasn't much, mind you, just a few bucks deducted each month automatically from my checking account.  I first found FFLA (as it is often called) in 2000 after reading a Frederica Mathewes-Green article on the web.  I was very excited to join, particularly as Feminists for Life seemed to advocate a strong consistent-life ethic; they opposed abortion, of course, but also euthanasia, capital punishment, and had several articles on their site about domestic violence.

I joined FFLA because I was eager to match, in some way, my convictions about the sacredness of all life (including embryonic human life) with my belief in equal political, social, economic, and sexual rights for women.  Everything I had learned as a student in women's studies courses (and from my solidly pro-choice family) had convinced me that the right to control one's own flesh is the most basic and important right of all, the sine qua non, if you will, of feminism. On the other hand, as my faith grew and deepened (thanks in no small part to my encounters with the Mennonites), I was increasingly convinced that the life of a Christian ought to be one of radical, total non-violence.  My conviction that life began at conception deepened as I read everyone from the aforementioned Mathewes-Green to Mary Ann Glendon whose famous address to the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women I have read and reread.

During this time, I came to believe that abortion was also a critical issue for men.  Glendon's words from the conference struck me:

...as John Paul II has emphasized, primary responsibility for a woman's tragic and painful decision to have an abortion often lies with men and with the general social environment. All who are genuinely committed to the advancement of women know that society can and must offer a woman or girl who is pregnant, frightened, and alone, a better alternative than the destruction of her own unborn child. Many proponents of abortion as a woman's "right", however, are far from having women's interests at heart. In fact, hiding in the shadows of the abortion rights movement are: irresponsible men; the prostitution traffic...

(Bold emphases are mine)

Honestly, I still find myself in complete agreement with every single word in that paragraph. 

I've been thinking a lot about what it means to be a pro-life, pro-feminist man.  (For starters, it means you're going to confuse a lot of people, and annoy lots of others.  Oh, and you're gonna have lots of 'splainin' to do!) I've come to the conclusion that the only way I can reconcile these two aspects of my faith and my beliefs is to focus solely on calling men to greater accountability.  In practice, that means dropping out of the current abortion wars.  I have, as of this month, cancelled my contributions to Feminists for Life.  I've been thinking about doing so for a while, ever since they quietly dropped their anti-death penalty advocacy (I find nothing about it on the site these days, though there were once many articles on capital punishment) and become a solely abortion-focused movement.  At the same time, I'm not going to give a dime to NARAL or Feminist Majority or Planned Parenthood.  To the best of my ability, I'm going to avoid supporting either side in the struggle over legalized abortion.  My heart is too torn, my politics too conflicted, for me to do anything else.

But I am not going to shirk all responsibility here.   Rather, I'm determined to work harder on reaching out to and interacting with young men on the issue of sexual accountability.   That may mean several things.  For one, it means working with teenage boys to resist the overwhelming culture of peer pressure that encourages them to "hook up" and "hit it" with as many young women as possible  It means working to break the cultural connection between having sex and being a "man".  It means teaching them that being "responsible" is about more than wearing a condom (though heaven knows, some of them need to start doing just that).  It means teaching them that they are responsible for the outcome of any sexual activity in which they engage.  At its bluntest, that's a message that says "don't ejaculate inside a woman until you are ready to raise the child that may follow."  In my book, coming inside a girl or a woman is the moment at which you give your complete consent to all that may follow as a result, physically, emotionally, spiritually.

I can already anticipate the Men's Rights Advocates' response: "What about the woman's responsibility?"  Women, including sexually active teenage girls, have their own agency.  They have their own moral responsibilities.  But I do believe that at this phase of the struggle, the most effective work that pro-life/pro-feminist men can do is with other young men.   That doesn't mean I won't work with and counsel young women (I already do as a youth leader).  But my primary focus, and the primary focus of all men who want to end abortion must be to change the hearts, minds, and above all, the behavior of their brothers. 

I've decided that in both public and private, I will take no position on whether abortion ought to remain legal.  But I will work, in whatever way I can, to make it unthinkable.

Comments

[bmmg39]

"I dunno - if your charactarization of men is nothing more than guys prowling around to get laid... then you know very little about men. This is, perhaps, true of men in their 20s and early 30s - for certain types of men (and who am I to question their lifestyle - at least they have a hobby). To paint all men with that brush - or even most men, is ignorance at best, but more likely, simple misandry."

Yeah, I'm 32 and I'm the exact OPPOSITE of that.

[bmmg39]

"As for "keeping another human being from coming into existence," I'm not sure how abstaining from sex is really all that different in that regard. After all, couldn't it be argued that every time a woman fails to have sex with a man while ovulating, she has prevented a human being from coming into the world? Is it wrong for a woman not to be pregnant at any given point in her life, because she could be in the process of creating a new life at that very moment and she isn't?"

But there are plenty of reasons that people don't have sex. I don't pursue sex because it doesn't interest me, others fear VD, and some choose to remain abstinent until marriage. I'm talking about the deliberate decision to do something artificial to prevent a person from coming into the world...

"That, combined with the fact that I don't believe there are souls lined up in heaven who just can't wait to be given form-- I believe if someone or something doesn't exist, it really doesn't exist-- means that I don't actually think preventing conception is all that "heavy.""

I'm not really talking about whether or not we have souls. I'm just referring to how philosophically "heavy" it is to think of what it would be like if one never existed.

"I don't believe we have any sort of moral imperative to reproduce, so when it comes to my decision about whether or not I'm willing to give up total independent control of my body/money/time/energy/life for a creature that's totally dependent on me, I'm afraid that the "rights" of something that doesn't exist to be brought into the world really aren't a high priority."

I'm not talking about "rights," either, in this case, because we're not even talking about someone who has been fertilized. I'm merely discussing an overall mindset of treating the prospect of conceiving a child as equivalent to contracting herpes.

[bmmg39]

"Anyway, believe me, there's no pleasing these MRAs....Yes, I heard that Wendy MacElroy (their former defender) is now persona non grata with them now...I don't feel any sympathy for women like her however, these women are enablers and deserving of no sympathy...I hope no womens' group allows her in now...as she hurt many women with her nonsense..."

Yeah, like treating men like they were actual human beings, right? [eyeroll]

[bmmg39]

""(As an aside, could we agree that the "sides" in this debate be re-ferred to as "pro-life" and "pro-choice?"

"No...as being pro-life gives you an assumed moral superiority over those who are called pro-choice...You are anti-choice, not pro-life...as everyone is pro-life including pro-choice people..."

The best thing to do is to call each side what it wishes to be called: "pro-life" and "pro-choice" will do just fine. The argument made by some pro-choicers is that pro-lifers aren't always pro-life about everything, such as war and capital punishment. But the obvious response to that is that pro-choicers aren't always pro-choice about everything, either, including the smoking of cigarettes, the owning of handguns, the legalization of certain drugs -- not to mention things I hope ALL of us are anti-choice about, such as rape, child abuse and arson. I have no problem saying I'm anti-choice when it comes to these things; it's not a slur word.

[mythago]

As we're speaking about their position on abortion, I would leave 'pro-life' as a label off all those who make exceptions that have nothing to do with life--they think it's OK to allow abortion in cases of rape or incest, or if birth control failed, etc. That's not protecting the life of a fetus. That's using a baby as a shield to hide behind when spewing morality about women's sexual behavior.

I would similarly exclude anyone who supports forced abortion from the 'pro-choice' label.

[NYMOM]

"Yeah, I'm 32 and I'm the exact OPPOSITE of that."

Somehow, believe it or not, that does NOT surprise me...

[bmmg39]

"Yeah, I'm 32 and I'm the exact OPPOSITE of that."

"Somehow, believe it or not, that does NOT surprise me..."

That I'm not preoccupied (or even interested in) sex?

[NYMOM]

"I'm not talking about "rights," either, in this case, because we're not even talking about someone who has been fertilized. I'm merely discussing an overall mindset of treating the prospect of conceiving a child as equivalent to contracting herpes."

Well sadly since BOTH of these things come about through the same method, people who aren't on the 'women with child as sacred' train have a habit of confusing the two...

AND if it continues, fewer young women will want to be mothers...as already we are seeing that many women who are the 'cream of the crop' are simply saying no to motherhood. It's almost like women who have no OTHER choices are the only ones who want to be mothers anymore...

Well where is our society heading if that continues?

AND I might add that you and other MRAs are the main ones leading the charge in that direction...so you better think about it a little bit more before you continue paling around with these idiots on other sites who keep denigrating women, especially in their role as mothers...

You just better start thinking about it...

[zuzu]

I'm not talking about "rights," either, in this case, because we're not even talking about someone who has been fertilized. I'm merely discussing an overall mindset of treating the prospect of conceiving a child as equivalent to contracting herpes.

Can you spin this last sentence out a bit? I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I can tell you that, certainly, it's a hell of a big thing to think that you're pregnant when you don't want to be. I mean, you're talking about a big decision whether or not to continue with the pregnancy, and if you do, there are huge changes to your body and lifelong responsibilities. Why not treat it as something to avoid unless you're willing to do it?

And really, with contraception, you *are* talking about rights. There are any number of pharmacists who will refuse prescriptions for birth-control pills because they think it's tantamount to abortion. And these are people who presumably spent time learning just what exactly happens when a woman takes a pill, which is that her ovulation is suppressed and she therefore does not produce eggs which can be fertilized.

Same with emergency contraception. A lot of pharmacy chains and pharmacy professionals' groups are allowing the pharmacists to refuse to fill such prescriptions, though they're supposed to refer the person to someone who will fill them (it sometimes doesn't happen).

Frankly, unless there's a potential for bad drug interaction with something I'm already taking, I don't want my pharmacist overriding decisions made by my doctor, particularly when that is based on the pharmacist's personal religious beliefs unsupported by medical science.

[bmmg39]

"And really, with contraception, you *are* talking about rights. There are any number of pharmacists who will refuse prescriptions for birth-control pills because they think it's tantamount to abortion. And these are people who presumably spent time learning just what exactly happens when a woman takes a pill, which is that her ovulation is suppressed and she therefore does not produce eggs which can be fertilized."

The reason birth-control pills are brought into the abortion issue is because many or all of them have a "backup" mechanism in which, should fertilization take place, implantation of the newly created human being is made very difficult.

"Same with emergency contraception. A lot of pharmacy chains and pharmacy professionals' groups are allowing the pharmacists to refuse to fill such prescriptions, though they're supposed to refer the person to someone who will fill them (it sometimes doesn't happen).
Frankly, unless there's a potential for bad drug interaction with something I'm already taking, I don't want my pharmacist overriding decisions made by my doctor, particularly when that is based on the pharmacist's personal religious beliefs unsupported by medical science."

It isn't a religious belief to understand the abortifacient nature of these medications.

[NYMOM]

"Anyway, believe me, there's no pleasing these MRAs....Yes, I heard that Wendy MacElroy (their former defender) is now persona non grata with them now...I don't feel any sympathy for women like her however, these women are enablers and deserving of no sympathy...I hope no womens' group allows her in now...as she hurt many women with her nonsense..."

Yeah, like treating men like they were actual human beings, right? [eyeroll]"

No...she aided and abetted you in acting out upon all your worse impulses...

For instance, encouraging you to fight for custody of children by claiming that the only reason fathers didn't get custody in the past was that you were discriminated against in courts...Full well knowing that was a lie...knowing full well...

Thus she was personally responsible for separating many thousands of mothers from their children, even infants...Wendy McElroy gave the intellectual and moral justification to Judges, GALS, Evaluators and others for these sorts of actions...

She encouraged you all in this nonsense. All of it...

Additionally McElroy was responsible for helping spread this nonsense that as many men get abused as women.

Again, causing many Judges, GALS, Evaluators and others to ignore violence committed against women in custody cases...and thus, again, giving Judges moral and intellectual justification to put many more women and children in harm's way by her articles and other actions encouraging you all with her nonsense.

Bottom line, her bullcrap give the moral and intellectual impetus to Judges who award custody to dangerous men...

So you all turning on her now is GOOD... It's Karma and richly deserved by her, richly deserved...

She's lucky, she can walk away from all the havoc she wrought...unlike many of the victims of her bullcrap who are stuck having to live through it...

[mythago]

It is a religious belief that a fertilized egg is a newly-created human being prior to implantation in the uterus.

[bmmg39]

"No...she aided and abetted you in acting out upon all your worse impulses...
For instance, encouraging you to fight for custody of children by claiming that the only reason fathers didn't get custody in the past was that you were discriminated against in courts...Full well knowing that was a lie...knowing full well..."

Except that it ISN'T a lie.

"Additionally McElroy was responsible for helping spread this nonsense that as many men get abused as women."

Which ALSO is a fact: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Man, you're REALLY bad at this...

[bmmg39]

"It is a religious belief that a fertilized egg is a newly-created human being prior to implantation in the uterus."

The human development textbook at my disposal must endorse religious beliefs, in that case...

[NancyP]

This thread is just hilarious.

[Talking in Circles]

'Of course, he was pleased as punch (although he still hasn't married her) BUT if she had to wait for Letterhead to stop using a pill in order for her to get pregnant...Letterman would STILL be thinking about his options...and that child would not even exist...

STILL... ' NYMON

He didn't marry her and wouldnt have been a father... still. So. What a bad man for not getting a written contract and reproducing. Just evil.

So what... heaven forbid that a free will should exercise choices. We cant have that now can we.

Seems like Letterman just has to deal with the situation and learn to make the best of it. What's he gonna do... leave the missus and suffer all of the emotional, financial and social fallout. Don't think so. Most descent human beings will love their children once they come into existence, but that says nothing about them having been deceived. And the attend reflection of and implications for the essence of a relationship which is trust.

Why would you lament men having a birth control pill? It would likely solve more problems than it creates (if any).

So what if women and men are having fewer babies. Whoopie do. Just increase immigration if local population growth is an issue. Their are plenty of un-wanted kids in China and India. Places, incidently, where many same sex couples already go to adopt.

[Keri]

bmmg39: There are also plenty of reasons that people use contraceptives. Some aren't interested in becoming parents, others fear the pain of pregnancy/childbirth, and some choose to avoid conception until marriage (or financial/career security, or until a certain age, etc). Sounds familiar, no? I'm not seeing why one choice is more "moral" or acceptable than the other, unless you're really objecting to non-procreative sex in a roundabout way, which again generally tends to be a religious imperative.

As for what it would be like if I never existed, well, I doubt I would be in a position to feel any emotion about it whatsoever, considering I wouldn't exist. I've never understood why some pro-lifers seem to think that's an effective argument against abortion. Sure, I like being alive now, but if I hadn't been born I wouldn't know the difference, so what does it matter? (Also, again, I'm not seeing much difference between "what if my parents had used a condom the day I was conceived?" and "what if my parents had chosen not to have sex the day I was conceived?")

And you may not like this, but honestly, if I had to choose right now between finding out I had herpes and finding out I was pregnant, I'd probably choose the herpes. I don't think you appreciate to what degree a pregnancy can be catastrophic for a woman who is not prepared or does not want to have a baby. It may sound nice to say "oh, if she only had the right attitude about it and worked hard enough, everything would turn out just fine!" but that's unfortunately a myth. "Embracing new life" isn't going to put money in the bank or food on the table, and getting pregnant isn't automatically going to give a woman who doesn't want to raise children sudden maternal instincts.

You're right in that we shouldn't always treat pregnancy as a disease, but nor should we all be expected to treat it as a wonderful miracle. I don't feel that I'm being disrespectful to women who are pregnant by choice or wanting/trying to get pregnant because I feel that pregnancy would be an extremely unpleasant and terrible experience in my individual case. Again, one's outlook on pregnancy is going to be strongly affected by one's situation and one's attitude toward parenting, and since both of those variables differ so much from person to person, it's ridiculous to suggest that everyone should think the same way about it.

[NYMOM]

"Why would you lament men having a birth control pill? It would likely solve more problems than it creates (if any).

So what if women and men are having fewer babies. Whoopie do. Just increase immigration if local population growth is an issue. Their are plenty of un-wanted kids in China and India. Places, incidently, where many same sex couples already go to adopt."

I personally would not lament it as it's less problems for mothers and children to be free of legal entanglements with men...as they appear to lead to nothing but trouble today...the problem would be men lamenting it just as you did when you discovered how many single mothers were having kids w/o you when you abandoned marriage...

So take the pill...I don't care...just take it...

[Talking in Circles]

'the problem would be men lamenting it just as you did when you discovered how many single mothers were having kids w/o you when you abandoned marriage...' NYMOM.

Lamenting single mums having babies... no way. l dont regret that in any way. Great, if that is what you want.

In terms of abandoning marriage... l cannot see how one can abandon something which they have never embraced. l dont see the point of marriage. l doubt l ever will see the point of that arcane failed institution. Cant be bothered living off (and not living as result of) each others neuroses.

[mythago]

The human development textbook at my disposal must endorse religious beliefs, in that case...

Your human development textbook states that a fertilized ovum pre-implantation is a human life the moral equivalent of a born human being?

[zuzu]

It isn't a religious belief to understand the abortifacient nature of these medications.

It's also not the pharmacist's place to impose their religious beliefs on me by refusing to fill a prescription. Take BCPs, for example: they're quite often the only thing that can regulate painful periods and cramping and excessive bleeding. Ergo, there is a legitimate medical need for them beyond contraception, AND the primary way they work is suppressing ovulation, not preventing implantation. Even if the "backup" were to kick in because ovulation had not been suppressed, there's no guarantee that there has been fertilization (since, let's recall, it takes a good deal of time for the sperm to actually reach an egg, if one's been released at all, and there's no guarantee any of the sperm will do the job). So, why would any service person's religious beliefs trump my doctor's instructions to dispense medication?

Let's try another example. Say you have a pharmacist who believes that certain mental conditions, such as depression, are caused by demonic possession. If you had crippling depression and the only thing that was keeping you functioning was Zoloft, wouldnt' you be just a leetle pissed off when the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription because it might make exorcising the demon more difficult?

[bmmg39@aol.com]

"Your human development textbook states that a fertilized ovum pre-implantation is a human life the moral equivalent of a born human being?"

No, not the "moral equivalent," but rather a human being in and of him- or herself, stating that "your true beginning took place at the moment when a sperm cell fertilized an ovum."

I can look for the exact excerpt if you'd like. Furthermore, other textbooks and dictionaries I've consulted on the manner suggest the same thing...

[bmmg39]

" So, why would any service person's religious beliefs trump my doctor's instructions to dispense medication?"

I've already addressed this. It's not a religious belief.

If the "date rape" drug were legal to dispense, but I refused to dispense it on the grounds that it (obviously) makes it easier for a person to be raped, would you accuse me of religious intolerance?

[mikeeusa]

Faith? What faith do you have Hugo? You do not follow the Bible... (If you did you wouldn't be: anti-marital-rape and anti multiple-wives-for-men and pro-women's-rights) Are you a buddist, or perhapse a deist or an agnostic?

[zuzu]

If the "date rape" drug were legal to dispense, but I refused to dispense it on the grounds that it (obviously) makes it easier for a person to be raped, would you accuse me of religious intolerance?

I would accuse you of not doing your job and of substituting your judgment for the judgment of my doctor. Which is exactly what I'm doing with the pharmacist who refuses to dispense BCPs. Which are legal. Whether that pharmacist thinks that through some attenuated possible set of circumstances my use of this legal product might could result in the failure of a zygote to implant itself does not change the fact that it is legal, my doctor prescribed it, and that pharmacist's job is to dispense it.

In any event, the pharmacists in Pharmacists for Life explicitly state that their objection is on religious grounds.